Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 and you still dont understand the difference between one individual and the differences across multiple indivuduals. What scares me the most was that you read a link that proves the exact opposite what you were saying, applied your patented retard translator, and somehoe claimed that it showed you were were correct. And you still havent answered the question of whats the average value of a die with sides cat, dog, mouse, bear, fish, and idiot (holcombs arm was too big to fit on the die) I suggest you read your own quotes again. Listen Einstein: you obtain a group average by averaging out individuals. Heritability is a group average, just like your quote said. As with any other group average, you calculate it by averaging out individuals. The fact you can't grasp something even as simple as this is truly pathetic. If you have a die with sides cat, dog, mouse, bear, etc., and if you average out all the sides, the average comes to this: "Ramius is an idiot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 No, I brought up the dice example. You the proceeded to butcher it out of ignorance into something not of this world, then tried to back it up from web sites from Stanford that you didn't understand. Ah, yes, your moronic claim that I "didn't understand" the websites from Stanford, despite the fact those sites said the exact same thing I'd been saying for the last 50 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If you have a die with sides cat, dog, mouse, bear, etc., and if you average out all the sides, the average comes to this: "Ramius is an idiot." Just liek usual, avoiding the answer, because you dont know, and because it disproves all of your drivel that you've been spewing for 5 months and 80 pages. do you understand heritability yet? probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Ah, yes, your moronic claim that I "didn't understand" the websites from Stanford, despite the fact those sites said the exact same thing I'd been saying for the last 50 pages. I didn't say you didn't parrot it; I said you didn't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 No, I brought up the dice example. You the proceeded to butcher it out of ignorance into something not of this world, then tried to back it up from web sites from Stanford that you didn't understand. I believe its part of the HA's thesis from Hamburger U, "The Unified Theory of Stupidity". The subtitle is "How cornstalks, more copper wire, and east german scientists can improve the world in 3.5 easy steps, simple as rolling a die." Theres also a foreword by molson goldfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 I didn't say you didn't parrot it; I said you didn't understand it. And once again you made an idiot out of yourself. Because I'd been saying those exact same things for literally dozens of pages before I found those links from Stanford, Duke, et al. Oh, and by the way, you were ridiculing me for saying those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 I believe its part of the HA's thesis from Hamburger U, "The Unified Theory of Stupidity". The subtitle is "How cornstalks, more copper wire, and east german scientists can improve the world in 3.5 easy steps, simple as rolling a die." Theres also a foreword by molson goldfish. Wow! Your errors to sentences ratio is higher than 1! That's an impressive ratio, even by your lofty standards. Let's start from the beginning, shall we? 1. A top 50 school isn't exactly Hamburger U. 2. The period at the end of your first sentence ought to have been inside the quotation marks. 3. Cornstalks and other plant waste represent a viable source of energy. 4. The electric grid can be expanded in part by adding more copper wire. 5. East German scientists were selected by merit, and not--as Bungee Jumper asserted--by political connections. 6. The average value of a die roll is 3.5. 7. There ought to have been an apostrophe in the word "theres [sic]." That's seven errors in the space of only three sentences! Congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 And once again you made an idiot out of yourself. Because I'd been saying those exact same things for literally dozens of pages before I found those links from Stanford, Duke, et al. Oh, and by the way, you were ridiculing me for saying those things. And I'm still ridiculing you for saying those things, and being inable to distinguish between a colloquial description written at the hamster level by people who know better, and your blithering stupidity that you think IS the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 6. The average value of a die roll is 3.5. You !@#$ing moron. The average value of a die ROLL is the value of the roll. The average value of die ROLLS is the sum of that rolls divided by the number of rolls. The average value of a set of die rolls will go to 3.5 as the number of rolls goes to infinity. But then, you said the "true average roll" of a die is 3.5...which isn't even any of the above. You can't even keep your own bull sh-- straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 And I'm still ridiculing you for saying those things, and being inable to distinguish between a colloquial description written at the hamster level by people who know better, and your blithering stupidity that you think IS the math. That's got to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 You !@#$ing moron. The average value of a die ROLL is the value of the roll. The average value of die ROLLS is the sum of that rolls divided by the number of rolls. The average value of a set of die rolls will go to 3.5 as the number of rolls goes to infinity. But then, you said the "true average roll" of a die is 3.5...which isn't even any of the above. You can't even keep your own bull sh-- straight. By "true average roll" I was referring to an underlying, theoretical average. That's not necessarily the same thing as the concept of an "average roll" averaged out across five or ten die rolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 By "true average roll" I was referring to an underlying, theoretical average. That's not necessarily the same thing as the concept of an "average roll" averaged out across five or ten die rolls. So by referring to "true average roll", you were referring to something that was neither a roll, nor an average, nor true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 That's got to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. You should read your own posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 So by referring to "true average roll", you were referring to something that was neither a roll, nor an average, nor true. That was witty, I'll give you that. Totally unhelpful for understanding any of the concepts we've been debating, but that's true of all your other posts too. If you won't or can't produce anything enlightening, you may as well at least be witty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 1. A top 50 school isn't exactly Hamburger U. So now you're admitting that you lied and didn't really go to a Top 50 school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 So now you're admitting that you lied and didn't really go to a Top 50 school? It's amazing that anyone on these boards is stupid enough to take you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 It's amazing that anyone on these boards is stupid enough to take you seriously. ok, i think i've got this correct. YOU work the drive thru, and molson runs the register, and pdh wraps the happy meal toys (when avoids swallowing the plastic parts). Or does molson box up the big macs? I'm assuming that he cant work the drive thru with you, because he doesnt have a degree from Top-50 Hamburger U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 ok, i think i've got this correct. YOU work the drive thru, and molson runs the register, and pdh wraps the happy meal toys (when avoids swallowing the plastic parts). Or does molson box up the big macs? I'm assuming that he cant work the drive thru with you, because he doesnt have a degree from Top-50 Hamburger U. Oh wow! You've just made up for hundreds of drool-ridden, intelligence-free, flat out stupid posts by creating that paragraph. Just kidding. You're still just as much of a stupid loser as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 6. The average value of a die roll is 3.5. :lol: :lol: Surely, you cannot be serious with this statement?? So let me get this straight, if I am playing a board game where there is one die, if someone asks me "what is the average of ONE roll of the die?" I should say: "Isn't it obvious, the result will be a 3.5???" The other person will ask "But I do not see a 3.5 value on the die" and I say "look closer" The next statement from the other person would probably include the words "crazy" or "delusional" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 :lol: :lol: Surely, you cannot be serious with this statement?? So let me get this straight, if I am playing a board game where there is one die, if someone asks me "what is the average of ONE roll of the die?" I should say: "Isn't it obvious, the result will be a 3.5???" The other person will ask "But I do not see a 3.5 value on the die" and I say "look closer" The next statement from the other person would probably include the words "crazy" or "delusional" Yes, he's serious. F'ing amazing, i'n't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts